Somewhere below the virtual fold in this morning's virtual papers was a headline announcing "Texas A&M … Warns Professor Not to Teach Plato" (NY Times), "Texas A&M Bans Plato Excerpt" (Chronicle of Higher Education), and the like. If you dig a little deeper, complications ensue. It appears as though a dean at A&M, overzealously or rigidly interpreting a university policy that courses eligible for general education credit may not "advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity," instructed Martin Peterson, a professor of philosophy, to remove two modules from the syllabus of a course called "Contemporary Moral Issues." One module dealt with race, the other with gender identity. Readings for the modules included selections from Plato's Symposium, specifically Diotima's ladder of love and Aristophanes' speech on the formation of gender. (I'll pass over the irony of banning the philosopher who wanted to ban the poets from his ideal republic on the grounds that they corrupted morals.)
Plato, that is, appears to have been collateral damage. At one level, I'm glad to see the newspapers emphasize Plato, since banning a book is an excellent way of making people want to read it. But focusing on the sheer stupidity of banning Plato from a philosophy course risks underemphasizing the greater stupidity embodied by the university's policy, and the greater danger in its threat to academic freedom. It seems needless to say that A&M's regulation came in response to ideological pressure from the state and federal governments.
It's good, also, to be reminded that the books we classicists read and teach glow from within, and that like all radioactive substances, they are powerful, and dangerous if mishandled.
~Lee T. Pearcy
January 8, 2026
